I don’t think Candidate X’s declaration would put much pressure on Candidate Y. Y can just say “I believe in democracy too, but I think that the founders of this great nation (pause for applause) knew what they were doing when they put in place a system that has served us well for over two hundred years. And I believe in the Constitution of the United States (pause for more applause) and I think that if we want to change how it works we should do it by the means laid down in that Constitution. I will not be joining Candidate X’s attempt to undermine the Constitution, and I ask my electors to vote for me as the founders of this great nation (pause for even more applause) intended.”
I don’t mean that everyone will agree when Candidate Y says that. But everyone will think it plausible enough that Candidate Y means it that Candidate Y won’t lose much credibility by declining to make the same pledge as X has.
(I don’t think the recent midterms are much evidence against this; I think the things voters seem to have penalized somewhat in those elections are quite different in kind from “declining to ask one’s electors to give the election to the other guy if he wins the national popular vote”.)
So this scheme is dependent on candidates’ willingness to take unilateral actions that can only hurt them and have a significant chance of handing the election to the other candidate. Even a candidate who thinks the national popular vote is a much better indicator of the Will Of The People than the electoral college vote, and who is keen to be sees to love democracy, is likely to be reluctant to do that.
And unless there’s (not just one candidate’s declaration, not just both candidates’ declarations, but) a robust agreement by both sides’ party machinery that this is the way to go in all future elections, this (unlike NaPoVoInterCo) doesn’t fix things permanently or even lastingly. It can happen in one election and then unhappen in the next one.
I do think it’s an interesting idea, but it looks like a non-starter to me.
I don’t think Candidate X’s declaration would put much pressure on Candidate Y. Y can just say “I believe in democracy too, but I think that the founders of this great nation (pause for applause) knew what they were doing when they put in place a system that has served us well for over two hundred years. And I believe in the Constitution of the United States (pause for more applause) and I think that if we want to change how it works we should do it by the means laid down in that Constitution. I will not be joining Candidate X’s attempt to undermine the Constitution, and I ask my electors to vote for me as the founders of this great nation (pause for even more applause) intended.”
I don’t mean that everyone will agree when Candidate Y says that. But everyone will think it plausible enough that Candidate Y means it that Candidate Y won’t lose much credibility by declining to make the same pledge as X has.
(I don’t think the recent midterms are much evidence against this; I think the things voters seem to have penalized somewhat in those elections are quite different in kind from “declining to ask one’s electors to give the election to the other guy if he wins the national popular vote”.)
So this scheme is dependent on candidates’ willingness to take unilateral actions that can only hurt them and have a significant chance of handing the election to the other candidate. Even a candidate who thinks the national popular vote is a much better indicator of the Will Of The People than the electoral college vote, and who is keen to be sees to love democracy, is likely to be reluctant to do that.
And unless there’s (not just one candidate’s declaration, not just both candidates’ declarations, but) a robust agreement by both sides’ party machinery that this is the way to go in all future elections, this (unlike NaPoVoInterCo) doesn’t fix things permanently or even lastingly. It can happen in one election and then unhappen in the next one.
I do think it’s an interesting idea, but it looks like a non-starter to me.